New MPA?
"It's probably best if we all live in the reality of the present. The RAF getting an MPA again is probably (never say never) not going to happen.
As I've said before, I would love to be wrong."
concur, sadly
As I've said before, I would love to be wrong."
concur, sadly
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Old Fat One, the odds of the UK R&D'ing an orphan platform is zero, the yanks sunk $8 billion R&D into the p-8a and uk simply don't have the money or the will after the last effort.
Suck it up, like Aussies, you will run the p-8a with a few bams
Suck it up, like Aussies, you will run the p-8a with a few bams
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not a case of "sucking it up".
That implies an element of negativity.
We are where we are, and the time for constantly going on about it is gone.
Would I have loved to see MRA 4 on the pan at Kinloss? Yes!! But, that didn't happen for many many reasons, and it's unhealthy to bang on about it forever.
I don't wish to speculate about P-8, because, frankly, that may be premature. However, it may be an option for the UK, and not simply a case of sucking it up.
That implies an element of negativity.
We are where we are, and the time for constantly going on about it is gone.
Would I have loved to see MRA 4 on the pan at Kinloss? Yes!! But, that didn't happen for many many reasons, and it's unhealthy to bang on about it forever.
I don't wish to speculate about P-8, because, frankly, that may be premature. However, it may be an option for the UK, and not simply a case of sucking it up.
Last edited by betty swallox; 23rd Jul 2013 at 13:07.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the RN Operating a New MPA platform of any sort...
I don't believe it would be in the RN's interest to own and operate such a beast outright. the Manning would be a nightmare with respect to training sea time. It would end up that some of the Ground crew would never go to sea and that has never been an option that the RN AFAIKR.
The best option would be that the RN own the Budget and control of Asset comes under FONA down to squadron Commander. The WSO's are provided by The RN and Groundcrew and some Pilots provided by the RAF.
Just my opinion...
I don't believe it would be in the RN's interest to own and operate such a beast outright. the Manning would be a nightmare with respect to training sea time. It would end up that some of the Ground crew would never go to sea and that has never been an option that the RN AFAIKR.
The best option would be that the RN own the Budget and control of Asset comes under FONA down to squadron Commander. The WSO's are provided by The RN and Groundcrew and some Pilots provided by the RAF.
Just my opinion...
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well it's going to be hard running a fleet without MPA and the 'suck it up' referred to a sole UK solution which isn't going to happen for the 2 reasons I've given, $8 billion R&D and fingers already burnt
better to buy 15 x p-8a at $200 million each, which is $3 billion plus pieces and put the other billions into upgrades
better to buy 15 x p-8a at $200 million each, which is $3 billion plus pieces and put the other billions into upgrades
Last edited by JSFfan; 23rd Jul 2013 at 12:31.
Well there might be other options:
1. Boeing and the UK Mil have a very good experience of a lease-purchase arrangement - lease small numbers of P8s with a view to buying more later when "we" have some money available.
2. Do we know how sequestration in the States is going to effect the delivery timescales of the USN P8s? - might release P8s from the production line for lease/purchase to allow the USN to spread their buy till they have more money available
3. Something smaller but which offers a more flexible platform ie the Casa 295 (already an operational MPA, can do all of the roles required of a MMA + troop transport, para, cargo, short-rough field etc etc) and looking to the future could provide an AEW varient to replace E3.
On the latter option (and I am not a fan/employee) but you could see a fleet of aircraft doing the full MPA role, pick up the comms fleet role, elements of the tac AT role as a successor to the 130J, a Shadow replacement and possibly in the future as an E3 replacement. A single platform doing all of these roles - think of the support costs savings.
1. Boeing and the UK Mil have a very good experience of a lease-purchase arrangement - lease small numbers of P8s with a view to buying more later when "we" have some money available.
2. Do we know how sequestration in the States is going to effect the delivery timescales of the USN P8s? - might release P8s from the production line for lease/purchase to allow the USN to spread their buy till they have more money available
3. Something smaller but which offers a more flexible platform ie the Casa 295 (already an operational MPA, can do all of the roles required of a MMA + troop transport, para, cargo, short-rough field etc etc) and looking to the future could provide an AEW varient to replace E3.
On the latter option (and I am not a fan/employee) but you could see a fleet of aircraft doing the full MPA role, pick up the comms fleet role, elements of the tac AT role as a successor to the 130J, a Shadow replacement and possibly in the future as an E3 replacement. A single platform doing all of these roles - think of the support costs savings.
Last edited by Roland Pulfrew; 23rd Jul 2013 at 13:08.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where the defence budget is magically going to find the necessary wonga to buy/rent/hire/equity share/steal/extort some shiny new MPAs is something of a mystery to me, but allowing for that possibility may I point out a somewhat bigger problem...
Binning the kipper fleet allowed the RAF to meet it's manpower reduction of 3500 posts, of which circa 1500-2000 would have been maritime-related.
Irrespective of who operates it, we is gonna need most of these posts re-established to regain the capability. And that is going to cost a bucket load of moolah...every year.
Binning the kipper fleet allowed the RAF to meet it's manpower reduction of 3500 posts, of which circa 1500-2000 would have been maritime-related.
Irrespective of who operates it, we is gonna need most of these posts re-established to regain the capability. And that is going to cost a bucket load of moolah...every year.
of which circa 1500-2000 would have been maritime-related.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: lincs
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roland - re your post #96, I think that is the best and most accurate reflection of the options and possible outcomes on this thread.
For what it is worth I think option 3 is probably the bookies favourite.
For what it is worth I think option 3 is probably the bookies favourite.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bristol
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MMA concept makes perfect financial sense but most of the "Other Govt Dept stuff" is not in a URD and not in DSD13 therefore there is a limited formal Defence requirement for it.
To get this off the ground one of the three (of the four who care) commands would have to give up their envelope to fund it or get together in a gang and "agree" to jointly fund it.
I am not getting that joined up feel.....
To get this off the ground one of the three (of the four who care) commands would have to give up their envelope to fund it or get together in a gang and "agree" to jointly fund it.
I am not getting that joined up feel.....
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
BloodyHound Loose, (Expiry time?) 
, agree with your post, but the cheap and cheerful option 3 has a lot of compromises that greatly limit it's effectiveness.
The main purpose of a carrier is to project power globally, I have spent many hours, and from your pprune name I suspect so have you, in LRMPA's keeping an eye on them whilst they transit the GOO and at other times. Whilst they usually have plenty of subs to look after them, we might not be in the same position. IMHO, if we can't afford to look after them whilst they project power overseas, the safest place for them would be tied up alongside. How would you balance the risk of losing a carrier, your only carrier, and the thousands of people on board?
, agree with your post, but the cheap and cheerful option 3 has a lot of compromises that greatly limit it's effectiveness.
A short range turbo prop MPA would probably be able to defend the deterrent at home; however, it's likely to have limited utility protecting the carrier world-wide. It will be up to the decision makers to balance that risk.
Last edited by Surplus; 23rd Jul 2013 at 23:50.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nice point Surplus.
It is one of the more ironic (or perhaps moronic) elements of the whole MPA cancellation saga, that the decision took place pretty much at the same time as the decision to continue building (but not necessarily equipping) aircraft carriers.
From the perspective of even the most intellectually challenged noob maritime siggie, it would seem the decisions were made on the back of a fag packet towards the end of an especially heavy happy hour in the MOD.
It is one of the more ironic (or perhaps moronic) elements of the whole MPA cancellation saga, that the decision took place pretty much at the same time as the decision to continue building (but not necessarily equipping) aircraft carriers.
From the perspective of even the most intellectually challenged noob maritime siggie, it would seem the decisions were made on the back of a fag packet towards the end of an especially heavy happy hour in the MOD.
Last edited by The Old Fat One; 24th Jul 2013 at 08:34.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as long as it's deemed neccesary, I guess...
No doubt there will be room for the odd extension or two if the talking heads are still vacillating about the future MPA capability, but expect it to fold pretty quick not least because the individuals concerned will be thinking "nice gig, bwtf is my life/career going?".
Of course it may mutate into something else, but then it won't be Seedcorn any more will it?
The main purpose of a carrier is to project power globally, I have spent many hours, and from your pprune name I suspect so have you, in LRMPA's keeping an eye on them whilst they transit the GOO and at other times.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the ITN 22:00 news on AQ threat to UK and US in Yemen. Reporter states all staff left and camera pans to the sky as he explains the drones remain, looked remarkably like a P-3... 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts